[Tina]

This documentary was fabulous, and though I’ve long loved Tina Turner, my respect and admiration for her went off the charts after watching this. How frustrating it must be to overcome so much and be constantly reminded of it; I feel like the media (and the public) love a good success story and sensationalism, so the Ike years became how they chose to define her. I love the fact that she fought back and refused to adopt the narrative of the abused partner who overcame and instead lived her life as the talented, fierce woman she is.

It’s a bit of a conundrum: telling her story served to make the break with Ike and it also helped other victims of abuse understand that it’s possible to take back control. However people latch on to that and never let it go. Plus, the Ike years are undeniably the part of the Tina Turner story; you cannot have a documentary about her and not tell that story. I think that the documentary handled it very well. It told the story of the abuse and it also made it clear that she was sick of talking about her abuse. What I took away from it is that was that she did not allow the abuse to define her, even when others insisted on doing that. 
 

As for PTSD, I know people who suffer from PTSD from combat and living through natural disasters and fires. I’ve learned that just because the event stopped and life is better, it’s common to not be able to just move on and act as though it never happened. Triggers are everywhere: for the combat veteran it’s swerving to avoid hitting trash in the road that may disguise an IED; for the hurricane survivor it’s the terror of a big rainstorm; for the fire survivor, it’s the sound of a siren. 
 

I got the feeling that with time and peace and love Tina has moved to a place of maybe not quite forgiving Ike, but someplace close to that. And based on her husband’s comments during the Broadway show opening, I got the sense that the show and the film were the way she really does close the book on that part of her life. She told her story, her way, and she can enjoy the rest of her life without any questions now-she dictated the narrative. Anyone who would ask her about all that after this film is just an asshole.

[Q: Into the Storm]

We’ve been watching this and always have to follow with a palate cleanser, like At Home With Amy Sedaris or Arrested Development.

My initial impression is that the Watkins are developing country wealthy-a lot of money for the Philippines but probably upper middle class for the US. Their offices and homes look pretty sparse, IMO. And there was no attorney involved in Jim’s testimony until someone put up some money for it (maybe he’s just cheap?) We wondered why they choose to live overseas and figured the ability to make the most out of money and the potential that they are sketchy as hell explain it.

 I tried to find info on the various players and from what I’ve read, Fred has had a tough life. It struck me that he was angry at his parents for choosing to bring him into the world with the knowledge of his condition. And while I don’t give him a pass on what he participated in with 8chan, and to some extent condoned and promoted, I do extend him some grace. I can’t fathom what it would be like to have his condition, be intelligent and inquisitive knowing that there’s so much he’ll never experience. Add in the mess of his home life (I read he was in foster homes for a while) and it’s easy to see how he found a community online where he could develop a persona that he controlled. And if I remember correctly he was only 19 or 20 when he got mixed up with the Watkins. Finally, he seems adept at critical thinking and at least a little self aware. I sense that he was beginning to question what 8chan was doing and what free speech really means and if it needs filters and when it needs filters. I am very curious to see where Fred ends up because he seems to have some potential.

 The Watkins on the other hand... There is almost nothing about Ron on the internet, including his age. Evidently Jim got married very soon after arriving in the Philippines and there may be another kid with that wife. But there’s nothing about Ron’s mom that I was able to find. Both Watkins come across as amoral and I wouldn’t be surprised if Ron was on the spectrum. I don’t believe anything they say at this point. 

[Allen v. Farrow]

2 hours ago, carrps said:

Man, Maysie, what a creepy story. I'd be giving this friend the side eye for a long time

We’ve since gone our separate ways, but that was the first thing in our friendship that made me see her in a different way. I’ve often wondered how forgiving she would have been if it had been one of her kids on the hard drive. (And I asked her if she’d leave her kids alone with him and she said she didn’t know, which, points for honesty I guess but wtf???) And that’s the thing: this is someone’s baby. But like the famous actors who stick by Woody Allen after all of this, I guess it’s hard to conceive that it’s possible if it didn’t happen to you/someone you love. I think for some people, they have to be directly impacted because they can’t really empathize well (which it turned out my friend had a difficult time doing).
 

Back to Woody Allen: even if you take Dylan out of the picture, there’s the whole Soon Yi thing, and even if she was of consenting age, it’s messed up and creepy as hell to take naked pictures of your girlfriend’s daughter. And it disturbs me that a whole raft of people are just fine with that.

[Allen v. Farrow]

I realized today that when someone has a personal relationship with an accused, it may really affect their judgment. Case in point: about 10 years ago I came across a letter on the desktop of a shared work pc as I was cleaning stuff up. I took a quick look to see what it was and asked my friend who wrote it if I could delete it. She said yes and explained that it was a letter to a judge requesting leniency in sentencing for an old family friend who was accused of watching/ downloading  child pornography online. I was a little stunned because at the time, my friend had elementary school aged children. Her position was that she grew up with this man who was like a second father to her and that she didn’t know the specifics of the charge; she figured it was kind of a barely legal kind of thing.

A few days later the paper ran the story of his sentencing because he was well known/liked (and an attorney). Evidently the porn was of 2/3 year old children and it was on the computer seized by the FBI. I was disgusted beyond belief but I didn’t bring it up with my friend. She brought it up with me a few days later and said she had no idea that’s what the charges were and she was conflicted about having written the letter, but she still viewed him as this great father figure from her own childhood.

So the guy goes to prison, does his time and when he gets out about five or six years later is invited to the kids’ bar mitzvahs (my friend specifically invited him knowing that it would be a parole violation). I don’t know if he went, but she really wanted him there, which I found pretty disturbing on a number of levels.

So even in a situation when someone cops to doing a disgusting, amoral, damaging and illegal thing, people will still find a way to hand wave it away if they have a favorable personal history with the accused. When money, prestige, fame, etc are in the way, I guess it makes it even easier to overlook these inconvenient issues (or truths, when proven).

[Allen v. Farrow]

On 3/21/2021 at 8:58 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

Now, Woody still comes off as a sick shit, but it's clear that the producers framed the story a particular way.  

I’m sure they did, and if it’s accurate, I have no problem with that. Years ago, when I was in journalism school, we were told that it’s almost impossible to not be biased-everyone has an opinion. However, it was critical that we be accurate. There’s nothing that says this documentary had to present both sides (it’s not a debate), and god knows Woody Allen didn’t give Mia Farrow rebuttal time in his press conferences (nor should he). I think showing clips of the press conference and reading Woody’s own words from his biography give us a pretty complete picture of his point of view.

It boils down to who you believe. I believe Dylan. And it makes me sad and angry that people are so much more willing to believe the established, wealthy white guy instead of the victim. I understand that these are allegations that can ruin lives and careers, and I don’t expect Woody Allen to suddenly cop to it, so he’s doing what I would expect him to do. But it’s so disheartening to realize how strong the trend is to dismiss the victims, and in the case of Woody Allen, laud him because he’s an artist. 

I think if Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Diane Keaton, or any one of his other defenders could say honestly, in their heart of hearts, that they would have been fine letting their 7 year old daughter hang out in the attic with Woody that afternoon, I will accept that they really buy what Woody is selling and see nothing wrong with fawning over him. But for fucks sake people, he was sleeping with his girlfriends college age daughter!!!!! How does that not make you at least give him the side eye????? 

[Allen v. Farrow]

I’ve thought a bit about the “chaotic” nature of Farrow’s house and I guess that my home growing up would be classified as “chaotic” at times, too. My mom was a single, working mother who raised three kids, and depending on the time of year and the day of the week and the time of day, the house ranged from pretty quiet to, well, I guess chaotic. We were in and out, coming and going, with all manner of friends in and out too. We made noise, ran around and often made great messes, but those were wonderful, carefree times and I wouldn’t have it any different; chaos doesn’t have to be bad. The issue I saw with the chaos in the Farrow household is that it gave Woody ample opportunity to take Dylan to the attic and molest her-it’s easy to lose track of a kid with so many people milling around. If Mia is like many parents, I imagine she blames herself frequently for making it easier for Woody to do what he did.

I agree with whomever upthread noted that at age seven, there’s not much difference between a boy and a girl running around topless. I don’t have kids, so I haven’t had to concern myself with such issues, but at a young age, I don’t see the harm in running around your home topless. I wonder if the fact that Dylan was comfortable hanging out that way in her own space also contributed to her clarity about what was done to her-understanding that it was wrong, etc. I’m just speculating and have nothing to base that on, but it occurred to me that perhaps being comfortable in her skin and in her home made that intrusion all the more disturbing/traumatic.

[Allen v. Farrow]

I’ve long been annoyed by Woody Allen. I’ve watched (and enjoyed/been bored by) some of his movies over the years, but never been a “fan,” though I could respect what he was doing. I remember when the Soon Yi stuff was in the news and finding that incredibly creepy. Between the age difference and the fact that she was Mia’s adopted daughter, it seemed just a little off. The stuff with Dylan wasn’t on my radar, so the thought that he may be using Soon Yi as a tool - a diversion for the press as well as a way to provide a narrative for why the accusations about Dylan were happening-never occurred to me. I just thought he was a bit of a creeper.

This series has moved me from annoyance to kind of hating him. I think he’s a loathsome, manipulative, misogynistic prick. The phone calls with Mia, combined with the disturbing videos of Dylan, were quite convincing. Throw in the nyc social worker investigation and the revelations about the way the New Haven investigation was conducted and I am pretty sure he did what Dylan said he did. The things he said-“I’ll take you to Paris” and “you can be in my movie”-reflect what he offered to other females to entice them to get what he wanted. But Dylan was what, 7 years old? It was gross that he was offering a trip to Paris to 17 year old Mariel Hemingway, but doing that to a 7 year old is repugnant. 

He is a master of manipulating the narrative and putting people on the defensive. He declared himself cleared before the state of Connecticut saw the New Haven report and sues for custody of kids that he never really wanted to begin with (remember, he told Farrow he wouldn’t be financially responsible or responsible for their care before she adopted Dylan). Everything is about him dictating the storyline.

 I don’t feel one way or another about Mia Farrow. I don’t think she’s a spectacular actress and she may be a little wacky. However I’m a little taken aback by the vitriol directed at her. I have no idea if she was a horrible or wonderful parent. I don’t know if she was over her head, if she favored some kids or not. I understand one kid is unhappy about their upbringing and a couple/few of the children are dead. But it seems that the kids we’re hearing from in this are generally supportive of their mother and I imagine if there’s any kind of damning story to tell about Mia, Woody Allen will find a way to tell it. She may well be awful, but for me, right now this is a story about Woody Allen abusing his adopted child. From what I can tell, Mia handled that situation properly. To start questioning all the adoptions and her parenting choices is whataboutism that isn’t really relevant to this particular story, IMO. That stuff would have been aired at the custody hearing, I would think.

[Sex And The City - General Discussion]

I would hope there’s a throwaway line about Samantha, something along the lines maybe referring to Smith’s career or even a text message or Instagram post or something. That’s the least they can do out of respect to the character, the actress and the fans that appreciated her.

[Sex And The City - General Discussion]

I think it’s challenging to straddle that line between realism and the potential fluff that comes with a happy ever after story. I try to give the show a pass on the frothy, pretty, happy ending they put together because I think that’s what the show developed into. 

I don’t consider this to be groundbreaking television. It could be fun, it could be irritating, it certainly provided eye candy if you’re into fashion. There was nothing really outstanding about the show-it was good, entertaining television but it wasn’t great. I didn’t like the series ending because it vilified Alek (pretty suddenly, too), turned Big into a savior, and ultimately (I thought) minimized Carrie. It was really her last shot (that we would see) for her growing up and taking control and responsibility for her life. Instead... no. Just more of the same Carrie stuff. And really, that is in keeping with what the show turned into, so from that perspective it was realistic. 
 

Maybe the biggest disappointment of the finale was that all the women expected Big to be the one to “save” Carrie from Alek’s evil clutches. I expected that from Charlotte but not Miranda and Samantha. 

[Sex And The City - General Discussion]

There's a lot I don't remember about the show because I haven't gone back to re-watch, but yeah, they did make Steve into a manbaby, which is annoying because it didn't start out that way (and it's really prominent with his voice - it's almost like they decided to write to the actor's actual voice!).

I go back and forth on the things that posters have brought up as issues - the dog, the suit, the move, etc. I never liked the idea of the dog because dogs are actual work and I don't endorse anyone getting a dog on impulse (let alone a puppy and a super intelligent breed that needs engagement). So Steve lost me on that one; he was a spoiled boy who wanted a dog so he got a dog and then basically gave up responsibility for the dog, which, ugh. He probably would have lost me on that move alone.

But...I understood his weirdness about the suit. I remember when I was dating my now husband and I was flat, busted broke because I was unemployed for a bit. It was very difficult to go against my nature and accept him paying for everything and it made me feel worse about my situation, even though he was being his normal, generous self. So that's hard for some people, and it's not always about control or gender roles or power structures in a relationship, as much as it can be a statement about who/what you are, where you are in life and your life choices.

As for the move and Steve's mother, I don't remember much about that time period. I can understand wanting to raise your kid in an actual house instead of a high rise apartment and can absolutely understand wanting to take in your aging parent. Was he selfish about all that? Yes, I think he was. But I don't think those two items are actually out of line in any family dynamic. Where it gets dicey is to insist on these things and then relying on your partner to handle it all for you. I may be misremembering, but I seem to think that Miranda was  okay with the idea of having Steve's mother with them; I seem to recall Mrianda's devastation at the loss of her own mother and how Steve's appearance at the funeral meant so much to her. So I saw that as not so much as payback, but as doing what she would have wanted to opportunity to do for her own mother. Interestingly, when you look at what happened to real estate in Brooklyn, they probably did pretty damn well with that house at the end of it all. I have hipster friends that moved away from Brooklyn, back to Manhattan, because Brooklyn became too expensive.

I will say that I was mortified at Mrianda's behavior on their honeymoon. Yeah, he wanted to have a lot of sex, which okay, there's only so much of that you can do. But Miranda behaved like she was being tortured spending an entire weekend alone with her husband! OMG! How horrible!!! I was left wondering why she married him if a long weekend alone with him was that awful.

ETA: I think middle aged fuck boy is an apt description of Big. Back when I was watching, I asked myself if I would have been prone to his charms as Carrie was, because he could be charismatic. I think he would have been a fun date, but beyond that, I think his aloofness/mystery/whatever, was a bit contrived - almost like those guys that know there are women out there that love the chase, so they adopt that posture/play the game to keep them going. Of all of Carrie's boyfriends, Aidan seemed like the best of the bunch; Berger was the worst. Ugh.

The men on the show weren't all that great. Robert, Harry and Aidan were the only ones I can recall actually liking throughout their runs on the show. Smith wasn't bad, but he was almost too good looking.

[Sex And The City - General Discussion]

The last few seasons wore thin for me, for a variety of reasons. It seemed as time went on all of the women became exaggerated versions of their original characters, making them less interesting and sympathetic to me. I don’t know if it was writing or acting choices or thinking that if people liked what was there, that making it even more would make them love it? It became a whirl of pretty shoes and clothes and first world problems, which is great escapism, but also a bit too saccharine for my taste.

I was disappointed with the Carrie/Alek storyline because they seemed to suddenly vilify him after setting him up to be this great catch and a potentially interesting partner for Carrie. When Miranda told Big “go get our girl” it made me ill and was so disappointing (especially coming from Miranda). Are we to believe that if not for Big that Carrie would have stayed in Paris because she didn’t have the means or wherewithal to take control of her own life and carve out the existence that suits her, whether back in New York or in Paris? It was a copout but I guess it’s in keeping with the character of never really accepting responsibility for her life and life choices and basically just rid8ng along in life, expecting others to make sure her needs are met.

Carrie really regressed in the series, and the movies just added to that. I thought it would have been interesting to have a mystery kid show up from one of Big’s many former relationships. Not in a way of “Carrie is suddenly a mom!!!” kind of way, but in a more nuanced mature story, like how she deals with a real rival for attention and making life choices that actually impact someone besides her. But I think that would have been way too serious for this group.

[Sex And The City - General Discussion]

I'm on the fence about whether I'll watch it. Carrie made me nuts in the series because she was so damn self absorbed and clueless, plus she was treated like this rare and magical unicorn, and that got tiresome. And the movies - don't get me started. I didn't like the first one and downright hated the second one.

Based on the movies, I fear we're going to be in for a lot of bad, stereotypical menopause action - hot flashes, vaginal dryness, changes in libido - and I'm sure there's going to be at least one male on viagra. And if I'm right, well then meh.

Obviously, things are vastly, vastly different since the series went off the air; even ten years after the last movie, things are significantly different. I don't have confidence that the writers can navigate the challenge of putting something together that is realistic/relatable, timely and fun to watch. All of the women, except for Samantha, got on my nerves periodically and I don't know how I feel about the potential of three entitled white women sitting around pissing and moaning how hard their lives are. It doesn't seem like a good time for that kind of show, and based on the show and the movies' track records, I have a hard time believing they'll be able to come up with something different that is able to meet the moment. Don't get me wrong - I can really enjoy some good escapist fun (Schitt's Creek, for example), but based on the way the show and films went, it runs a huge risk of being tone deaf at best and offensive at worst.

All that said, I'm curious about what they put together. I figure I'll keep an eye on the forums - I'm trying to stay away from shows I don't really like because I'm trying to avoid falling down the hate-watch rabbit hole.

 

[S01.E08: Arrivals and Departures]

On 12/19/2020 at 10:03 PM, LuvMyShows said:

It doesn't appear that Megan ever did anything illegal in any capacity on any of the overseas trips, so why would they assign a CIA agent to keep an eye on her, and for such a long time, and then not have anyone assigned to her in her hometown where she actually did do stuff?  If they already knew what she was doing, why didn't they arrest her way earlier, or do something CIA-ish to catch her employer, if that's what the CIA was after?

I figure the CIA has someone on Megan and her husband at home. I'm wondering if they assume/know she was meeting someone on those trips. We didn't see much of Megan overseas so we don't know exactly what she was up to on her trips - we saw Cassie's stuff, which makes sense because it was mostly Cassie's story and the Megan story was peripheral. When they travel, they seem to all go out together for drinks and dinner; I imagine for Shane it's a good cover for watching Megan when they're on the ground overseas. He can keep an eye on who Megan comes in contact with, no matter how innocent it may seem (e.g. paying a bar tab, buying a pack of gum, etc) Shane is in a position to see potential contacts, including who, where, when.

I may be misremembering, but I thought Megan was supposed to be on that Rome flight for a reason (didn't she request it, and to have Cassie with her? Or am I confused?). Anyway, Shane working with Megan and watching her on these trips makes total sense to me; the CIA probably wants to know who she's dealing with and just how deep and wide that network is because Megan is a cog in the big machinery. They're kind of using Megan as much as the other guys are.

The Megan storyline actually sets up nicely for season two.

[S01.E08: Arrivals and Departures]

4 hours ago, mikem said:

I was thinking that the white, pale, and Yale FBI agent would end up being one of the bad guys, because, at times, he seemed to be sabotaging the investigation by being so focused on Cassie and not listening to his partner.  But, as it turns out, he's not a traitor, just a jerk.

I know! I was prepared to think he knew about the murdered agent already and that he was in on the whole thing. I'm so glad I was wrong.

Overall, we looked forward to watching this show. Yeah, I think some of the plot points were a bit sloppy or pushed believability (Miranda making it to Italy with a bloody leg, fighting Buckley in the elevator and somehow resurrecting out of the bathtub; I know she's a badass, but come on!), but this show was done with a light hand so they could get away with it, imo. Yes, there were some serious issues, such as Cassie's drinking and her relationship with her father, but I felt like they kept a nice balance.

I knew Buckley was a creep not long after he first inserted himself into Cassie's life because he was far too pushy/needy. I did not see Shane as a CIA agent, however.

1 hour ago, AnimeMania said:

I am pretty sure that the FBI lady reached out to all intelligence agencies with assets in Rome near where Cassie would be, to protect her.

That was what I figured, although in real life I don't know that the various agencies are all that close. However, I could see the FBI alerting the embassy and things moving along from there, so I'll go along with Shane the CIA agent being the man on point.

I like Rosie Perez and I can relate to her feelings of being unseen (as most women of a certain age experience), so her story didn't bother me too much. I thought she was super naive, however. And her husband too - he would let her shop on his work laptop??? Yikes. They were kind of ripe for the picking. Anyway, it provides a starting point for the next season.

I'm in for the second season.

[Murder On Middle Beach]

Conway is a soup sandwich and I switched between feeling sorry for her and being angry with her for her behavior, particularly her really savage attitude towards Ali (such as "I don't love her!" and blaming her and making sure everyone knew it). At the time of the murder, Ali was probably around 15 years old. So Ali argued with her mother and told her to fuck off. So she drank and ran around. So she told her mom that Conway needed to move out. I understand that none of that is good, but she was 15 years old. It's not like she was a grown ass woman with a child who ran away to Florida (abandoning her child in the process), took up with a pimp and then tried to put a hit on her sister's entire family. But the (apparently) drunken phone call, the "yeah, I live in a trailer now but I made a nice little sitting area out here" and opening the storage unit to find that she had a bunch of Barb's ashes in there made me feel a bit sorry for her because she is obviously unwell. She needs help, and probably has for a long, long time. Barb's death, including discovering her body, has traumatized her and it makes me wonder if she will ever recover.

Ali doesn't give me the warm fuzzies, but I will say, I respect that she did what she had to do for self care, including getting therapy and away from that family.

Jeffrey is a low life creep. All of those documents (and again, wtf with Conway keeping them in storage??? Did the police have copies of that stuff?) and he is ballsy enough to deny every bit of it. I kind of understand Madison's desire to keep a connection with his father because that's his one remaining parent and he has some good memories of his father (and video evidence of it!), but I agree that if he wasn't ready to sever the relationship on some level, he wouldn't have secretly taped the conversations.

During the FOIA hearing, I was so disgusted when the police had those smug smiles on their faces after the Detective answered the follow up question from one of the hearing attorneys. I am giving them a hard side eye in all of this.

Madison impresses me no end. It would have been so easy for him to turn this piece of work into a schmaltzy, feel-sorry-for-me-but-I'm-still-a-badass project but I never once got any of that vibe from him. His motives are clear, and despite the emotional toll this must take on him, he produced a fine series that was compelling and not overwrought. As Ali said in the final episode, there were two paths, one of living in the darkness of what happened to their mother and one toward living life in a healthy, happy way. I think they each chose the right path, but their journeys are vastly different. I hope he finds the peace his sister has found, no matter what happens with the case. It occurs to me that we've kind of watch him grow up in this documentary. I'm sure his mother would be proud of the man he's become.

 

[The Vow]

Finally coming on to say that last week, The New York Times ran a piece - "Which Nxivm Show is Better?" - by the reporter who broke the story for the paper. He said he watched both series reluctantly because he'd had his fill of the cult, but he was curious to see how his impressions matched with the documentarians' takes.

The first thing that jumped out at me is the reporter said that The Vow's documentarians (Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer) were the ones that reached out to him and asked him to speak to Mark, who then put the reporter in touch with Catherine, Bonnie and Sarah. I don't know why, but I thought it was Mark or Catherine who reached out to the reporter directly. I don't think the documentary made it clear that the filmmakers were the ones that made the initial contact to the NYT, and I kind of feel like they should have.

This was also an interesting part:

"But while the documentary’s vérité style offers intimacy, several defectors in the show are Hollywood types comfortable around a camera and seem at times to be playing to it. Also, in my first encounters with the film’s characters, they stuck me as messier — and in turn, more interesting — than how they appear in “The Vow.”

For instance, Vicente and Edmondson insisted during our first talks that Nxivm wasn’t a cult but a self-improvement group that had somehow gone off the rails. And Vicente, a filmmaker who shot much of footage chronicling Raniere’s reign that animates “The Vow,” told me that he still wanted to promote a movie he had made that glorified Raniere’s activities in Mexico. I told him I thought he was nuts."

He felt that the fact that Mark was a member of another cult before NXIVM was left out was a crucial omission in "The Vow" (evidently that's going to be part of season two). He also noted that there was some friction and "competition" between "The Vow" and "Seduced."

In the end, his opinion was "Seduced" did a better job of matching his impression of NXIVM gained through writing about the cult, but he thought both could have done more to explore outside enablers of the cult (public officials, lawyers).

It was a short, but interesting read. I don't know if you need a subscription to read it, but the link is here.

 

[Murder On Middle Beach]

18 hours ago, fountain said:

This family is a piece of work. There are so many skeletons.

When we were watching, we actually remarked on how normal their mother seems but how fucked up all the kids (Conway, Barb, etc) are. I know their dad was an alcoholic, but he had been sober for like 30 or 40 years when Barbara was murdered. From all accounts, so far, it looks like they had a pretty good life - unless we find out in the next episode that Mom and Dad were also hella messed up, which given how this is unfolding may be a possibility!

16 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

The fights that Conway described between Ali and Barb sounded like typical teenage girl stuff crossed with Ali being a brat. I can't imagine calling my mom and then my aunt in the middle of the day to tell them that I wanted to leave school for no reason. Ali may have been a bratty, demanding teenager but that doesn't mean she murdered her mom. I think that Conway absolutely believes everything she says, but she seems like the kind of person who is a shit stirrer who creates drama wherever she goes. And somehow Conway thought it was okay to run away from home, prostitute herself, do drugs, and then move in with her sister (after hiring a hitman to murder said sister along with her niece and nephew) but she draws the line at teenage Ali telling her mom to fuck off.

Absolutely! I got along with my mom, but man, when we argued we could do it right! And my sister and mother - holy mother of god, the throw downs! It was hormones, teenage angst, personality conflicts and we all grew out of it and moved on into peaceful adulthood. And I think it's an excellent point that somehow believing that hiring a hit man to kill not only your sister, but her husband and young children is not worse than the teenage girl telling mom to fuck off is a bit . . . odd. When Conway was telling the story about cashing in her 401(k), meeting the hit man at the nice hotel and waking up to find out she's been rolled, well, we already knew the end of that story, didn't we? On one hand I feel sorry for Conway because she seems like a fucked up, lost soul. But on the other hand, she's a grown-ass woman and needs to get her shit together. Throwing her niece under the bus isn't a good look on her.

So far, I'm thinking the culprit is Barbara's ex or the murder has something to do with the tables.

Finally, I am really impressed with how well Madison is documenting all of this. He's still pretty young (early 20s when he started this, right?) and he's not shying away from the tough questions and learning some unsavory things about his family, including his mom and dad. I find that he's been asking the questions I've had - often he asks them before I know I had them. The documentary itself is interesting, obviously helped along by the fact that his family provides a wealth of material. It must have been hard a difficult project for him.

[S01.E06: The Bloody Truth]

23 hours ago, carrps said:

I didn't watch the second season but I've been considering it. I'm no longer considering it. I hated at the very end of the last episode of the first season Kelley showed the police detective watching the moms on the beach and clicking her cigarette lighter (something he added), because he thought they needed closure or something?***

I think I'm in the minority in my Big Little Lies second season hate - I guess they're going with a third season. As much as I liked the first season - the cast, the story - I disliked the second season as much or more. It just felt like they did it to 1) cash in on the success of the first season and 2) to add Meryl Streep to the mix. And unsurprisingly, Meryl Streep ended up being the best thing about the season, but she wasn't enough to salvage what to me was a bad idea (kind of like Daniel Day Lewis in Phantom Thread).

16 hours ago, RealReality said:

Season 2?  I thought the whole draw of the show is that it was a limited series?

Oh good grief. Maybe they'll cast Meryl Streep as Elena's mother who wants revenge.

 

[S01.E06: The Bloody Truth]

I learned a few things by sticking it out:

• Skip David E. Kelley shows. Between this and the second season of Big Little Lies, I'm done.
• Just because you can pull together a potentially good cast doesn't mean you can coast on the writing. Even great acting can't make up for a poorly conceived, uneven and inconsistent plot.
• I have absolutely nothing against Nicole Kidman (and I was really happy for her when she escaped Tom Cruise because I loath him) but I don't think I need to hear her breathy whisper voice again or sit through trying to interpret what her open mouthed, expressionless face is trying to convey.
• When the first episode or two of a multi-episode series isn't working for me, just stop. Don't waste time on it.
• Don't assume it's going to be good if it's on HBO.

I really had no problem with Jonathan being the killer because it made more sense than anything else. I do resent all the ridiculous red herrings (the long, knowing looks between him and Sylvia; Franklin's cryptic comments; Grace's bizarre visions). I read an interview and David Kelley said something along the lines of it was never meant to be a mystery but was supposed to focus on Grace's perspective of finding out who her husband is/was. However, he still wanted to throw in some twists and turns because things aren't always what they seem. Which, maybe if he was a great writer/storyteller that would have worked, but he doesn't seem to be able to handle that kind of nuance. And when your lead's face isn't able to emote sufficiently to help us along, it doesn't bode well.

By the last episode, everyone's native accents were slipping out. We spent a good portion of the episode trying to figure out where the actor portraying the prosecutor was from (Ireland? French Canadian?). Nicole Kidman did it throughout the series and at one point in the finale, even Donald Sutherland seemed to slip a bit. Guess it's a good thing they kept Hugh Grant's ethnicity for his character.

My husband used to fly helicopters and was laughing throughout the final scene that they were literally chasing Jonathan's car. Perhaps that's what Grace was smiling at when she walked off the bridge with her son, who had just been through a life changing, PTSD-inducing event.

 

[Murder On Middle Beach]

9 hours ago, pfk505 said:

Disagree. I still think it's pretty compelling, if not for the true crime aspect but from the personal angle. Like most documentaries in this genre it suffers a bit from jumping around and not being clear on timelines but I like the personal stuff (the girlfriend, for example). It emphasizes the nature of the story. This guy evidently worked on the documentary for almost a decade and you can see the care that went into it.

I agree. I think the story is interesting and while there is a bit of confusion on timelines and people sometimes, overall, I think it's a good first effort. I'm not confused about who, what, when like I was in other HBO documentaries coughTheVowcough, that are produced by professionals.

I feel badly for Madison because I bet he had no idea of the shit his mother was up to and so was probably unprepared for what he's learned. As for Jill, Conway, Barbara, Dona, etc. - I'm sorry, but if you are hiding cash in the freezer or burying it in a hole in the ground, you know what you're doing is wrong, not a fun game to uplift women.

[S01.E05: Trial By Fire]

Ugh, I'm so annoyed by this show! One more to go.

I don't think Henry killed Elena. It would entail him following/stalking his dad and Elena and I just don't find that plausible, though for as much thought as anyone gives their children on this show it isn't unreasonable that he'd be out running the city and his parents wouldn't know. But seriously, I just don't see it. When the hammer ended up in his violin case, I wondered if that was a new thing, and I have to believe it is (the last time we saw Henry practicing violin was at Franklin's). So I kind of think since Henry is living at Franklin's house, that the hammer was there. Now whether Henry found it and associates it with his mom, dad or granddad, I don't know, but I think it's more likely that Henry took the hammer, figured it belonged to his mom or grandfather, and hid it because I cannot wrap my head around any one of those three adults planting the hammer in the case (because that's especially loathsome). IF that is the case, that would lead me to Franklin because it's his house - Johnathan sure hasn't been there since the murder!

I don't like Jonathan, but I don't consider him a sociopath simply because his mother called him such. Again, more bad parenting (at least we know where Jonathan gets his from). I don't know, but if my kid was in any way involved with the death of a sibling, whether by accident or neglect, he'd be in therapy - especially if he's showing no signs of emotion or acknowledgment afterwards.

The trial was a hot mess, as everyone has mentioned. Sylvia waving at the prosecutor - hey that's not shady! The graphic pictures without warning was ridiculous and the fact that the children are attending the trial is more evidence that these people are absolutely shitty parents.

I'm leaning towards Grace being the murderer simply because Sunday night I dreamed Nicole Kidman was trying to kill my husband and me. She had a giant chain and padlock and was swinging it menacingly; she was going to beat us with it!

HBO is getting a little too good at stretching shows that should be one or two episodes into much more than they need. First The Vow and now this... this should have been a movie. I could have had an answer in two hours instead of wasting six weeks thinking about what a piss poor job they did with this.

[S01.E04: See No Evil]

20 hours ago, ReviewX said:

If Sylvia was the other fling, though, would she have met with Grace and unloaded that whole story about how she represented him on the case at the hospital? Seems to me she'd stay away from talking about him at all lest she telegraph subconsciously that they had a past.

If Sylvia was the other fling, whether it was a one time event or something that was ongoing, she's as guilty of betraying Grace as Jonathan is (and I'm not saying that sleeping with your friend's husband is as bad as your spouse cheating; I mean that as far as we know, it was something she chose to do). And if she's willing to sleep with her friend's husband and able to carry on their friendship as normal, I think she'd be okay talking about him (and even revealing their secret lawyer-client relationship, which should have been confidential). It would have been interesting to see if the long looks Jonathan and Sylvia exchanged in court would have happened if Grace had been present.

16 hours ago, Bulldog said:

Why would Grace and Sylvia allow their children to watch Jonathan's interview when they knew the subject matter that would be discussed.  I guess I might could understand Henry, but why Sylvia's daughter? 

I believe it's important to be honest with your kids and I think it's wise to be cautious of over-protecting them from life's hard lessons, however, I'm kind of blown away that there seems to be absolutely no effort to come up with a strategy to navigate this awful situation with minimal damage to Henry. It's almost like he's an afterthought. Again, Grace is supposed to be some great therapist, but there's no indication that she's even thought about how this is going to impact him. When the school wanted to remove Henry from classes for the duration of the trial it was not lost to me that Franklin fought against it from the perspective of his own ego; he'd given the school so much money that he felt it was his right to make demands on the school. I don't recall much of an argument about maintaining consistency and normalcy for Henry. It seems like no one really gives a shit about that.

15 hours ago, Foose said:

This is Donald Sutherland's second turn at playing Nicole Kidman's father - he was the saintly Reverend Monroe, a quite different critter from Franklin, in Cold Mountain some years ago with Nicole as his sweet daughter Ada. Maybe Nicole exerted some pull to get him cast again in The Undoing.

IMO, I figure Donald Sutherland doesn't need anyone to use pull to get him cast. I imagine there aren't that many roles for men of his age, however, there doesn't seem to be too much competition at this point, either.

4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

The dog thing especially seems to be hinting at something, even though I cant say what. I would say that he killed his dog as a kid and that's why he never talks to his family, but if this was his inner murderer coming out, why does he insist on not having one as an adult? He is trying to suppress his murder urges? 

 

3 hours ago, Ashforth said:

I thought the dog story was total fiction, something Grace made up on the spot as an excuse for Jonathan's refusal to get a dog. It was very strange.

My feeling with the dog story, whether fiction or not, is that it showed us early on that Grace is adept at covering for Jonathan so he can maintain his "good guy" status. There are only two episodes left and I figure with all of the time we'll burn on watching the press chase Grace and Jonathan, the detectives popping up randomly to present more "evidence" and Grace walking around Manhattan in fabulous coats we won't get into the depth and breadth of Jonathan's lies. I think they've done a good job of evolving that character from all around great guy to a narcissistic, entitled asshole, so I'm okay if we're left with speculation about the dog story, etc. They have a lot of ground to cover in two episodes, so I don't care if we get an answer about the dog.

When I was watching the last episode, I realized that Nicole Kidman's mouth reminded me of the witches' mouths in HBO's movie The Witches.

[S01.E04: See No Evil]

15 hours ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

I think the thing that disturbed me the most in this episode, in fact in this series so far, is the entitled was that Jonathan barged into Fernando's apartment and refused to leave, insisted on talking to the little boy, etc. in spite of Fernando's orders to get away from his son and to leave.  Every part of my being was offended by his arrogance.  HE needed to do this. He had no regard for the rights or feelings of others. It was he who needed to speak, it was he who needed to talk, it was he who needed to be heard.  And the way he dismissively waived away Fernando's objections with "He's my patient" as though he had any right at all to be in that home doing that.  Something inside of me wanted to kill him where he stood. It made no difference whether he killed Elena or not, he had no right to be in that home.

Yeah, that was really something else. I've leveled a lot of criticism at this show and the writing, but I think one of the things that has been done well is gradually unfolding the character of Jonathan. He seemed likeable enough in the first episode - as someone said, we saw him through the eyes of his wife and family. But as the series progresses, we see him for the entitled prick he is. Yes, he is probably a great doctor, and I don't doubt that he at least loves his son, but now we get to see his overblown sense of self. I still don't see him as a murderer, however. He's not off my suspect list, but he's not at the top of it at this point.

 

9 hours ago, Haleth said:

These people are all horrible.  There's no one to root for.  Maybe Fernando if he is being honest.

That's pretty much how I feel. I can't say I dislike Fernando, or that he's horrible because aside from that interaction with Jonathan, we only see Fernando through Grace's point of view. I'm not convinced he's been stalking her - I don't believe he was following her in Central Park in the middle of the night when she was wandering around. He has two kids at home, ffs, and I don't get the vibe that he has the luxury to loiter around her dad's building, waiting for Grace to take a walk. Fernando is a working man and now a single father; he doesn't have nannies and such to pick up the slack at home.

When the cops showed Grace the picture of her portrait, I though "so what?" People don't have to sit for portraits anymore. As someone mentioned earlier, we learned early on that Elena hung out in front of the school, so she would have had plenty of opportunity to take Grace's picture. As well, I'm sure it was easy enough to Google and find information and pictures of her on that thing we call the internets. A portrait of Grace means nothing other than Elena painted her picture. Hell, for all we know Jonathan could have commissioned it before he started sleeping with Elena (I don't believe that). There are so many possibilities that the whole scene, including Grace's reaction, was just stupid.

I am absolutely on board with Sylvia being Jonathan's other fling. I would be surprised if it was only a one off, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Sylvia was more into him than he was her. Does Sylvia have a husband? I can't remember if there's been any reference to a spouse in any of the conversations...

[S01.E04: See No Evil]

12 hours ago, Melina22 said:

Tonight I totally felt this! Especially in the scene with Hugh on the boardwalk. He was showing so many microemotions on his furrowed, aging face. (Sorry Hugh) Nicole's face looked bizarrely smooth and blank. She could squint and frown a bit but not much more. It all felt so phony. 

During that scene, I looked at my husband and said "boy, her acting sucks." I thought she was absolutely awful - no emotion in her voice, her face - just nothing. Nicole Kidman is supposed to be a Great Actress, and for that reason, I've given her a lot of leeway in this, thinking this is supposed to be some sort of character trait, but now I just think she sucks in this role. I don't know if it's her fault, the writing or the direction, but damn, she's the worst of the bunch, imo.

 

10 hours ago, Melina22 said:

When he was pleading his case to Connie Chung and was admitting he loved Elena, he made some weird faces. Were we supposed to think he was faking for sympathy? I couldn't tell. 

That was another wtf moment for us. I think Hugh Grant has been much better than I expected in this - I can see why he was cast because of his image of that charming scamp, with a little age on him, works well for this role. But that whole facial evolution thing confused me. Also, when he said "I've lost someone I love," I wondered if he was actually referring to Grace, since she told him the marriage was over at that point.

 

8 hours ago, aghst said:

Grace had to ask daddy to bail cheating hubby out.

But that apartment has to be worth $7-8 million at least, with that terrace with that view.

Unless it’s a studio and only has like 800 square feet or something.

I believe the terraced apartment is Grace's father's apartment. It's quite grand and I'll bet it's worth way more than 8 million. Grace and Jonathan have the townhouse, which is worth some bucks too. I'm guessing that Grace isn't so invested in Jonathan's innocence that she's willing to risk her home, but she's happy to risk some of her father's spare change for bail.

 

2 hours ago, Ashforth said:

She seems to be representing both of them, which is a clear conflict of interest. The whole thing about the detectives ruling Grace out as a suspect because of the time stamp on the video is stupid. In that case, everyone is ruled out because they aren't on video near the crime scene at the time of the murder.

This is one of several things that make me side eye much of this plotline. It seems awfully fast for Jonathan to be arrested, charged and out on bail, yet the detectives are still building their case. I understand that some detective work goes on after the fact - witnesses are found and interviewed, etc., but it seems to me that if they are still trying to figure out Grace's role in this, then perhaps Jonathan was arrested and charged a bit too soon?

My takeaways from the episode: we learn even more about Jonathan - this time, we see his entitlement (going to Fernando's and basically bullying his way in; the way he orders the attorney's staff around; the assumption that his marriage will be unaffected by all this). We also learn more (unsurprising) things about Donald Sutherland's character. On the other hand, I feel like I know even less about Grace. For instance, it's like she doesn't work at all now. She walks. And that's pretty much it. I don't really buy that Fernando was stalking Grace in the park in the wee hours of the morning, so that much I'm chalking up to more of Grace's "visions."

I don't think either of the kids had involvement in the murder; I think Sylvia, Grace, Franklin and Jonathan are the most likely perps at this point, but god knows what will be thrown at us next week.

At the end of the episode my husband kind of sighed and I said "don't worry; we only have two episodes left." I don't think they had that in mind when they put this thing together.

[S01.E03: Do No Harm]

On 11/15/2020 at 7:50 AM, chediavolo said:

Extremely expensive wigs. Combo of plastic surgery, other dermatological procedures, hormones, A personal trainer, a personal chef, healthy eating,  a very very very high end lifestyle and throw in some good genes. It is frustrating for the average woman of the same age though😳  I am enjoying the show and Nicole’s wardrobe is making me extremely jealous and pissed I wasn’t born filthy Rich🙂

Years ago my dad and I were discussing how well Kim Cattrell held up; I said I'd never looked that good in my life. He made a wonderful point that I've kept with me as I age: it's her job. I would not want to be famous or have the pressure to maintain my looks to that extent, but as he said, that's all they really have to do. The Nicoles and Kims of the world have personal assistants to run errands and shop for them, chefs to cook for them, stylists to pick out the proper clothing for them, people to keep house for them. So they have time (and money) to invest in staying fit and looking their best.